The goal of this study was to evaluate whether fifth grade regular elementary students who receive instruction in departmentalized settings from departmentalized teachers in mathematics demonstrate higher levels of achievement when compared with the control groups of fifth grade students who receive instruction following identical curriculum in non-departmentalized settings from non-departmentalized teachers. The need for fifth grade teachers who teach mathematics to possess high levels of competency in order for their students to be successful in this critical subject area, where the content is more complex and demanding than that required of teachers working in the lower grades, formed the basis for this study.
It is important to clarify the meaning of departmentalization versus non-
departmentalization, which was applied during this study for discussion, data collection, and evaluation purposes, given that there is a great deal of confusion with regard to the definition of each type of instructional model (Baker, 2011; Lobdell & van Ness, 1963; Welch, 2000; Welch, Brownell, & Sheridan, 1999). Departmentalized mathematics teachers at the elementary level, for the purposes of this study, are those teachers who teach mathematics to two or more different classes of students during the regular school day. Departmentalized mathematics teachers at the elementary level may be either fully departmentalized, where they teach mathematics to different classes of students all day, or they may be partially departmentalized, where they teach mathematics to different classes of students for two or more periods, or part of the elementary school day.
Departmentalized or semi-departmentalized instruction can occur as a result of team teaching, which includes a multitude of instructional delivery structures, including
29
collaborative teaching, cooperative teaching, parallel teaching, station teaching, or co- teaching. Welch, Brownell, and Sheridan (1999), in their literature review on team teaching and school-based problem solving teams, highlighted the fact that there has been a problem in arriving at conclusions from the literature regarding teaching team structure because the terms “team” and “teaming” have different meanings for teachers,
administrators, and researchers.
Welch (2000) noted that “co-teaching (Cook & Friend, 1996; Dieker & Barnett, 1996; Nowacek, 1992; Walther-Thomas, Bryant & Land, 1996), cooperative teaching (Bauwens & Hourcade, 1995), and team teaching (Welch & Sheridan, 1995) all refer to a similar instructional delivery system” (p. 366). For instance, in just looking at one example of an explanation of what it means to take a cooperative instructional approach, Bauwens and Hourcade (1995) defined cooperative teaching as a structure where two or more instructors, who are particularly skilled in certain subject areas, work in cooperation to serve heterogeneously grouped students in regular, general education classroom
settings. However, no matter which approach or combination of approaches achieves a level of either full or semi-departmentalized instructional delivery of mathematics in the regular fifth grade classes for the school district participating in this study, the classes were considered departmentalized and were evaluated accordingly.
Self-contained, non-departmentalized classes have one classroom teacher who is responsible for teaching the four key subject areas within the elementary curriculum, namely, ELA, mathematics, science, and history/social science. It is possible that the classroom teacher may be responsible for some or all of the additional instructional areas (art, music, and physical education) as well, depending upon the school or the school
30
district, making their classes purely or totally self-contained and non-departmentalized. However, self-contained classes are usually served by specialists in the areas of art, music, and physical education, and these classes may be considered to be following a modified, self-contained model (Lobdell & van Ness 1963). For the purposes of this study, purely self-contained, non-departmentalized classes and modified self-contained, non-departmentalized classes were considered non-departmentalized and were evaluated accordingly.
There is a great need for further research evaluating the effectiveness of instruction in departmentalized and non-departmentalized settings, along with the evaluation of the performance of racial minority and gender subgroups in these settings. Patton noted in 2003 that contradictory results have been obtained from past studies that evaluated student achievement when instruction was provided in different classroom organizational structures. Kent (2010), Moore (2008), Ponder (2008), Williams (2009), and Yearwood (2011) also noted in their studies that previous research findings regarding the effectiveness of departmentalized and non-departmentalized classroom organizational structures were mixed, thereby warranting further study.
Theoretical Framework
Sociocultural learning theory and constructivism scientific theory served as the foundation for a majority of the research studies reviewed that evaluated the possible relationship between the instructional setting and student performance. The theoretical framework chosen for this study was social constructivism learning theory, a combination of sociocultural and constructivist learning theories. Sociocultural learning theory is based primarily upon the work of the Russian psychologist, Lev Vygotsky (1935, 1978,
31
1986, and 1998) and Jean Piaget (1952, 1954, and 1962). Contributions in support of the theory were also made by Bruner (1971) and Bandura (1993, 2001).
To understand social constructivism, one needs to understand aspects of both sociocultural learning theory (Vygotsky, 1978) and constructivist theory (Piaget, 1954). Vygotsky (1935, 1986) theorized, in accordance with sociocultural theory, that children relied upon their social experiences in order to gain understanding, build their internal conceptual knowledge, and develop as individuals, which serves as the foundation for child development and may occur spontaneously and sporadically. Piaget (1952, 1954) believed that children developed by constructing their own individual learning,
internalizing mental and thinking processes, which served as the foundation for child development in progressive stages. Piaget (1952) held that
What we must translate into terms of adaptation are not the particular goals pursued by the practical intelligence in its beginnings . . . but it is the fundamental relationship peculiar to consciousness itself: the relationship of thought to things. The organism adapts itself by materially constructing new forms to fit them into those of the universe, whereas intelligence extends this creation by constructing, mentally, structures which can be applied to those of the environment. (p. 4) Vygotsky (1935), on the other hand, believed that the relationship between the child and their social environment and their social communication with others (speech and verbal meaning) were the keys that unlocked the door to constructing internal understanding.
Vygotsky theorized that it was the relationship between the social environment and the child that led to true learning, as the child gained the ability to generalize and internalize meaning through their social experiences, which served as the true foundation
32
for child development. Vygotsky’s research and observations showed that the cycle of interactions between the child and their social environment allowed children to achieve higher level thinking processes and reach their full potential as individuals. Hence, while Vygotsky and Piaget never met, the premises of their learning theories revolved around how children develop and construct their own learning and thinking processes internally while interacting with the external environment.
Vygotsky (1935) believed that children developed through this relationship with their environment rather than believing that children must develop their own internal processes first. Piaget (1954) believed that children developed by constructing their own learning internally, as constructivists believe that individuals do not perceive objective reality as it is, but rather, that sensory input should be viewed as an interaction with pre- existing knowledge. Vygotsky theorized that children could only do this by interacting with their social environment, from which the child would internalize and develop their own mental processes. Therefore, both Vygotsky and Piaget theorized that children had to construct their own meaning in order to gain understanding, but Vygotsky’s research studies demonstrated that children accomplished this by taking advantage of their relationship with their environment, which he did not view as a static relationship, but one which changed as the child changed.
Based upon his research, Vygotsky (1935) concluded that there was an important relationship between the child and his or her environment, and that the environment was not “peripheral in relation to development” (p. 1), but rather a dynamic entity that influenced and directed the child’s development. Vygotsky found through research and observation that, as the child changed, the relationship between the child and the
33
environment changed, and the same environment would then proceed to have a different impact upon the child, further impacting the child’s development. Vygotsky noted that the relationship between the environment and the child was the key to the child
constructing learning internally, as
we could show many more instances which would demonstrate that absolutely every aspect of development will determine which way the environment will influence development, i.e. the relationship between the environment and the child and not just the environment in its own right, or just the child in its own right, will always be central. (p. 5)
Vygotsky (1935) believed that as the child changed, he or she would gain something different from the same environment, such as by looking at the same picture from a different perspective. The child would learn how to generalize and categorize new information, given his or her new paradigm, which would lead to more advanced thinking processes as the child internalized new knowledge and gained a new level of understanding. This sociocultural approach highlights the importance of the necessity for providing a stimulating, dynamic, social learning environment, such as that provided in a departmentalized setting, from which children can reap the rewards by gaining new knowledge and constructing their own understanding,.
Therefore, Vygotsky (1935) discovered through his research that children developed “under particular conditions of interaction with the environment” (p. 6) and that, where one would expect the child to be at the final stage of development, actually exists in a rudimentary form in the child at the first stage, where the environment exerts a
34
real influence. Vygotsky stated that the “environment was a source of development, not just a setting” (p. 7).
Vygotsky’s (1935, 1978, 1986, and 1998) work revolved around three areas which fall into the social constructivist domain: individuals in the learner’s environment who play a key role in learning, the people who affect the learner’s view or perspective, and the tools implemented that affect the way in which the learner constructs his or her own knowledge. All three of these factors affect the learner and how he or she will progress in terms of intellectual development. While the constructivist believes that learners construct their own individual knowledge, the social constructivist believes that this learning can only truly take place through the use of language and social interaction.
In terms of sociocultural learning, Vygotsky (1935) theorized that the child proceeded to develop through the cyclical process of interacting with his or her own environment, building upon their external communication skills in speech. Vygotsky saw speech as a means of social interaction as well as a form of expression and a means of understanding. Vygotsky believed that external speaking skills led to internal speech and brought meaning to the child’s vocabulary, which affected their internal thinking
processes and their level of understanding, as words and their meanings were considered to be units of thought. Therefore, Vygotsky held that children furthered their own development and learned how to take in information by generalizing and categorizing material by being able to interact with others in a social setting or environment, thereby bringing further meaning to their own learning.
Vygotsky (1986) found that when children used external speech as the primary form of communication in social settings as part of the social function in their
35
environment, this process served as a foundation for children to learn how to speak to themselves, or use internal speech. As noted by Vygotsky,
In our conception, egocentric speech is a phenomenon of the transition from interpsychic to intrapsychic functioning, i.e. from the social, collective activity of the child to his more individualized activity--a pattern of development common to all the higher psychological functions. (p. 228)
Vygotsky (1986) explained that social interaction allowed children to experience their environment by interacting with the experiences and thoughts of other persons, and he found that children who did not possess the ability to generalize were unable to communicate effectively or conceptualize, making understanding impossible for them. Vygotsky believed that children converted their use of external speech to internal speech, constructing their own internal thinking processes and furthering their own development, much as Piaget (1954) had theorized. Therefore, Vygotsky highlighted the importance of the social role of the child’s environment, as well as the importance of the inter-
connected relationship between the environment and the child’s development, and hence, his or her learning.
It is interesting to note that Bruner (1971) and Dewey (1916) also highlighted the importance of social interaction to the construction of learning. For instance, Bruner pointed out that “those who are acquainted with cross-age tutoring will know, as I discovered, the extent to which those who helped are helped, that being a teacher makes one a better learner” (p. 21). Dewey highlighted the importance of social interaction by stating that “the other point is the necessity of a social environment to give meaning to habits formed” (p. 212), in terms of students being able to construct meaning from, and
36
learning through, social interaction. Bandura (2001) also reconfirmed his belief in the importance of the social interaction connection to learning and cognitive development, noting that “it is not just exposure to stimulation, but agentic action in exploring, manipulating, and influencing the environment that counts . . . an agentic perspective fosters lines of research that provides new insights into the social construction of the functional structure of the human brain (Eisenberg, 1995)” (p. 4).
Vygotsky (1998) also theorized that there was a learning zone, defined as the zone of proximal development (ZPD) which he identified as the range, in terms of mental age, of what the child could do himself, independently, without help, successfully, and what the child could accomplish while working with knowledgeable others. The ZPD range establishes both the child’s level of mental development and mature capabilities at that point in time and also predicts what the child could do with the help of knowledgeable peers or adults cooperatively, identified as the area of future development. Therefore, the lower end of the ZPD range reflects the child independent capability, and the upper end of the range reflects what the child could accomplish by extending himself/herself and his/her capabilities by working to learn with the help of more advanced peers or adults.
Vygotsky (1998) believed that all students worked in their ZPD ranges as they learned and that “the optimum time for teaching both the group and each individual child is established at each age by the ZPD” (p. 204). Consequently, the social learning
context of the departmentalized setting should provide a platform for students to mature mentally and achieve, given the ZPD learning concept proposed by Vygotsky, resulting in higher achievement. Also, as students work to learn, given their ZPD, and considering the anxiety that many students experience when learning, the social interaction provided
37
through cooperative learning opportunities can be the key to student success by reducing student stress (Daniels & Cole, 2007). Nasir and Hand (2006) also highlighted the importance of the social, interpersonal learning process, known as scaffolding, in which assistance provided by others in a social setting can help to improve a student’s level of performance and increase their level of understanding, which would go hand-in-hand in support of students working to extend their capabilities and learning within their ZPDs.
Vygotsky (1978) did not believe that children’s mental capabilities developed in a linear fashion, but rather, he thought it was a complex progression, marked by periodic growth, uneven functional development, and the mixture of external and internal factors. Therefore, teachers can make a real difference in children’s lives as they grow, develop, and become more independent thinkers, because teachers can create those periodic moments that result in leaps in a child’s development that result from construction of his or her own knowledge, again connecting to the constructivist approach taken by Piaget (1954), Borenstein and Bruner (1989), Bruner (1971, 2008), and Dewey (1910, 1916). Therefore, a social learning setting, like one that is more likely to be found in a
departmentalized classroom organizational environment, would facilitate greater child development and increased learning. The departmentalized setting is more likely to provide cooperative learning and sharing experiences, and as Vygotsky theorized (1935, 1978, 1986, and 1998), learning is enabled when students have the opportunity to work with competent adults and with higher-achieving peers in environments that are
conducive to providing these types of learning experiences.
Vygotsky (1935, 1978) believed effective education was conducted through social interaction, which allowed students to think and learn about how to construct their own
38
knowledge, rather than to just be receivers of factual content. Vygotsky (1978) was concerned about what types of cooperative activities would lead to the intellectual development of the child. Vygotsky was also concerned that the student learn to understand concepts that would promote higher-level thinking and application, rather than just learning rote knowledge, which are consistent with Piaget’s (1954)
constructivist theory.
Students who are taught in departmentalized settings have the opportunity to interact socially with multiple teachers across several content areas. Departmentalized settings provide opportunities for students to communicate with a number of highly competent teachers who possess a vast array of knowledge, exposing them to a variety of personalities and teaching styles, which will enhance their own learning experiences and help build their social skills (Page, 2009; Yearwood, 2011).
Teachers who are subject matter experts and who are secure in their field also know how to differentiate instruction to meet the diverse needs of each student so that he or she can internalize what they have learned and move on to a higher level ZPD,
furthering his or her own intellectual development. Vygotsky (1978, 1986)
recommended that individualized education goals for each student be recognized by responding to their diversity, rather than taking an approach that everyone learns the same way, supporting current efforts towards providing differentiated learning opportunities in the regular classroom (VanTassel-Baska et al., 2008), which can be further supported in departmentalized instructional settings.
Samuelson (2012) highlighted the fact that the cognitive development of children has been stagnated due to the efforts to pursue greater proficiency on standardized tests.
39
Samuelson also pointed out that there has been a loss of opportunity to pursue dynamic and diverse learning opportunities as a result of this standardization. Hence, the
engaging, differentiated, and cooperative learning that can take place in the
departmentalized setting could help to offset the move toward extreme standardization in this era of numerous assessments and increased accountability.
The departmentalized setting is rich, in terms of providing opportunities for authentic teaching and learning experiences, social interaction, and the construction of individual knowledge by each learner. Social constructivist learning theory forms the foundation for evaluating the effectiveness of the departmentalized setting in this study by evaluating the potential effectiveness of this learning environment, based upon achievement attained by students. Dewey noted back in 1902 that what inspires the interest and passion in children is what propels them towards a higher level of learning. It is possible, even in this era of standardization and increased pressures to perform, that the departmentalized setting may provide more opportunities for the types of diverse, social activities that inspire students to learn, furthering their own cognitive development,